The ordering of the statuses changes when nodes change status

Bug #1442280 reported by Raphaël Badin
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
MAAS
Fix Released
Low
Blake Rouse

Bug Description

In the UI, the ordering of the statuses changes when nodes change status (http://people.canonical.com/~rvb/status-change.png). It produces an annoying flickering impression.

When there is a lot of activity, it's hard to figure out what's going on when things move around. You can't just watch the numbers go up and down… because all the lines move around.

I suggest keeping the statuses sorted alphabetically.

Tags: ui

Related branches

Revision history for this message
Blake Rouse (blake-rouse) wrote :

This is a quick easy change but we should check to see what other think.

Changed in maas:
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Low
milestone: none → 1.8.0
Revision history for this message
Gavin Panella (allenap) wrote :

I would also like the statuses to stay in order rather than reordering by count.

Raphaël Badin (rvb)
description: updated
Revision history for this message
Ricardo Bánffy (rbanffy) wrote :

I like the the idea of keeping them sorted.

Revision history for this message
Mike Pontillo (mpontillo) wrote :

+1 for moving the statuses around.

I think I would prefer the statuses to be ordered not alphabetically, but logically. That way you could see the node counts "flowing" down during deployment. For example:

    NEW = 0
    COMMISSIONING = 1
    FAILED_COMMISSIONING = 2
    # not sure where "disk erasing" belongs
    DISK_ERASING = 14
    READY = 4
    RESERVED = 5
    ALLOCATED = 10
    RELEASING = 12
    DEPLOYING = 9
    DEPLOYED = 6

    # exceptional conditions
    # (put these at the bottom? indicate with a color and/or icon?
    # or separate with spacing, so they stand out?)
    MISSING = 3
    RETIRED = 7
    BROKEN = 8
    FAILED_DEPLOYMENT = 11
    FAILED_RELEASING = 13
    FAILED_DISK_ERASING = 15

Revision history for this message
Mike Pontillo (mpontillo) wrote :

Er, I meant to say +1 for NOT moving the statuses around. Sorry.

Revision history for this message
Andres Rodriguez (andreserl) wrote :

+1 not moving status, although, they should be probably ordered alphabetically.

Revision history for this message
Blake Rouse (blake-rouse) wrote :

Will be done! Quick an easy.

Changed in maas:
status: Triaged → In Progress
Changed in maas:
assignee: nobody → Blake Rouse (blake-rouse)
Revision history for this message
Carla Berkers (carlaberkers) wrote :

Eek, moving statuses are confusing!

To a user it makes most sense to order them by stages in the node life cycle, so pretty much as Mike suggested but with "disk erasing" between "allocated" and "releasing"

That gives users a better overview of their hardware utilisation and it helps them understand what the statuses mean.

Changed in maas:
status: In Progress → Fix Committed
Changed in maas:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.